Why is ANH Kenobi considered stronger than his RoTS self?
Title says all. I didn't watch Rebels S3 (guess people think he is stronger due to something he did on that show), so why is he considered stronger now all of a sudden?
because he's explicitly stated to have grown as a duelist and him being very good was part of the intent behind the shorter fights than he was having with Maul in TCW.
It's also noted that he has deepened his connection to the force.
As there is alack of evidence that suggests otherwise, we go with that.
lol hes not, watch young Obi and old Obi move and try to tell me that Ben is a better fighter or a stronger force user. He gets by with subterfuge and guile in ANH because he knows that he can't go head to head with enemies anymore
As it is never specified he grew in one way and declined in another, this assumption of yours that Kenobi's improvement is matched by some sort of degradement. Additionally, Kenobi being "very good" is noted as a reason for why his fight with Maul in Rebels is shorter than his fight with Maul in TCW. We have evidence that he's improved and none that he's declined, so we can assume he's a better swordsman.
I do not care. Kenobi having a deeper connection to the source of all his power would logically make his powers greater. Additionally, he's a peer of Vader, a force user who's feats several years pre-rebels stomp al over anything ROTS Kenobi has done as of this point
Are you actually trying to form a judgement based on choreography and a fight's visual appeal? Nah, as he's stated tohave grown as a swordsman and him being very good was part of the expressed intent of the dhorter fight he had in Rebels in comparison to the "prolonged lightsaber fights" he had in TCW, all evidence in new canon points to Kenobi being better. As there's nothing indicating the opposite, we go with Kenobi having improved.
They also didn't have the same choreography/special effects back then, and Lucas originally did not intend for Vader and Ben to be as great as the new canon does
The fact that it's symbolic or artistic doesn't change the fact that it happened. A high-class swordsman was cut apart faster than you can say it, that's pretty relevant.
Yea, the quote never specifies or alludes to the context you're asserting that is present here. They didn't fight other comabatnats like that because Feloni, didn't want to have that kind of fight before.
So I'm gonna say, nah, aight? [/QUOTE]
Nope, no, him three-shotting Maul had nothing to with being vastly above him. Unless you want to tell me you think Ben could stomp the likes of Vader.
Urm yes it does. Filoni clearly gave the reason why he didn't want the same kind of fight again: "I never saw this as being my ANOTHER Prolonged Lightsaber duel because that would suggest no growth" (paraphrasing a little).
Improved "skill" as swordsmen was never suggested or alluded to.
Nope, no, him three-shotting Maul had nothing to with being vastly above him. Unless you want to tell me you think Ben could stomp the likes of Vader.
[/QUOTE]
The three-shorting Maul was to make it clear Ben is now the superior of the 2 leaving No Doubt about it. Filoni makes that clear when he states "I felt that every time Maul parries Obi-Wan it suggests they're equals and I don't think they are.." (again slightly paraphrasing, but the important words which support the meaning I'm alluding to are there in the actual quotes).
Sep 20th, 2017 02:37 PM
